The Science and Technology Parks (STPs) Evaluation Model ... · International Business Research;...
Transcript of The Science and Technology Parks (STPs) Evaluation Model ... · International Business Research;...
International Business Research; Vol. 11, No. 11; 2018
ISSN 1913-9004 E-ISSN 1913-9012
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education
187
The Science and Technology Parks (STPs) Evaluation Model
Approach to Eco-Innovation Key Indicator
Mahdi Yami1, Gao Changchun2, Gao Han3
1,2 School of Business and Management, Donghua University, Shanghai, China
3 School of Government, Peking University, Beijing, China
Correspondence: Mahdi Yami, No. 1218, 7e Ave, Montreal, QC., H1B 4J6, Canada.
Received: September 21, 2018 Accepted: October 22, 2018 Online Published: October 26, 2018
doi:10.5539/ibr.v11n11p187 URL: https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v11n11p187
Abstract
Science and Technology Park (STP) is one of the most important innovation policies to develop the regional
economy. To manage the STPs successfully, a standard evaluation system as a reference is needed. However,
there is no consensus about the definition of successful STPs due to their different goals and regions. Hence, it is
necessary to establish a reference framework to evaluate the success of different STPs and it is essential to assess
their main goals as the competitive advantage by a set of innovation indicators. This study developed a research
model to evaluate the competitiveness of STPs by analyzing the impact of innovation subjective externalities
based on the Global Innovation Index (GII) and approach to the eco-innovation key indicator. This STP
evaluation model is adopted and tested by two different fuzzy analyzing and examines the survey forms and
questionnaires that have been filled by some STP experts and as a case study all the evidence has been gathered
and analyzed from ―Caohejing Hi-Tech Park‖ in Shanghai and the results evaluated the competitive advantage
via innovation policies and performances and the rating rank contents some innovation main dimensions, key
indicators and factors and also the important result as eco-innovation development and diffusion.
Keywords: science and technology park, innovation evaluation, eco-innovation, competitive advantage, fuzzy,
global innovation index, diffusion
1. Introduction
The Science and Technology Park (STP), is a powerful complex to develop the regional innovation to be set up
as a techno-polis.(Wikipedia, n.d.-b) In recent years a good number of researches involved in evaluating the
STPs to find the best way willing to compare different STPs structures. But as a consequence, many factors
extend on a large set of dimensions affecting the STPs and this feature makes STPs particularly difficult to be
properly evaluated or compared. Hence, a standard STP evaluation index is extremely needed to cover the entire
subjects in policies and performances.(Ferrara, Lamperti, & Mavilia, 2016)
The innovation is the main indicator of the STP evaluation to cover and promote many other factors.(Diez-Vial
& Montoro-Sanchez, 2016) Measuring innovation outcome is a powerful dimension for STPs to evaluate the
capabilities.(Zeng, Xie, & Tam, 2010) However, the most important characteristic of the innovation outcome
measurement approach is eco-innovation development.(Specht, Zoll, & Siebert, 2016) Hence, a reference
framework system is deeply necessary to measure the innovation outcome related to eco-innovation development
result.
This research aims to capture a multi-dimensional evaluation model by discussing the nature of STP according to
the innovation measurement. This innovation large scale, based on global innovation index (GII) is obtained to
evaluate the effectiveness both of the innovation policies and innovation performances. This model as a
comprehensive framework measures the innovation input to output growth upon improving the eco-innovation
development as a strong competitive advantage. The feedbacks of an STP in Shanghai - China as the case study
considered the effectiveness of innovation output on STPs competitiveness.
In recent years many pieces of research tried to illustrate the STP evaluation methods, also there are some STP
evaluation handbooks encouraged by governmental commissions (e.g. European Commissions1, OECD2, etc.)
1www.ec.europa.eu
http://ibr.ccsenet.org International Business Research Vol. 11, No. 11; 2018
188
but following this kind of paper-based methods would take so much time, cost and administrative affairs. Some
other traditional STP evaluation methods just redefine the limited definitions without proposing a practical
model of evaluation. We are trying to illustrate a practical index with the prompt method and also accurate result
in measuring the outcome key dimensions as the key goals. This index is a multi-level dynamic system,
involving various indicators to follow the objectivity systematic principles.(Xu, Wang, & Wang, 2011)
In section 2 (Literature Review), we follow the introduction by literature review to discuss and dominate the
previously published papers and survey the precedent attempts at STPs evaluation. In section 3, as the
methodology and measurement tools, the main dimensions and comprehensive subjects for STP evaluation is
considered. In section 4, the experimental result of the surveys and questionnaires will explain. In section 5, as
the Discussion, is the main part of our research model to analyze the result and compare with other scholars. In
section 6, concludes the research and we finally signed the paper by section 7 as the references.
2. Literature Review
2.1 Background
―Science and Technology Parks‖ (STPs) play important role in creating the innovation to grow the competitive
advantages. STPs are designed to offer a number of shared services, utility, and product resources, such as
incubators and collaboration facilities to industrial and research plants(Kolahi, 2015) to add value, reduce costs,
improve the environment, and achieve innovation sustainable development.(Wu, Wang, Hong, Piperopoulos, &
Zhuo, 2016) The convergence of policies, performances, and facilities play a key role in the STPs for facilitating
the communication, knowledge flow, new businesses creation and internationalization.(IASP, n.d.) The
―International Association of Science Parks‖3 and ―Association of University Research Parks‖4 are two main
associations related to the STPs.
In many scholars, the literature on STPs has the title of ―Regional Innovation System‖ due to regional input to
output characterized by cooperative innovation.(Tsai & Chang, 2016) This cooperation and interaction in STPs is
emphasized because internal innovation also needs to obtain from universities and other regional firms and it is
highly concentrated on competitive regions to the positive impact the competitiveness.(D. Minguillo, Tijssen, &
Thelwall, 2015) The STPs innovation strategies as knowledge and information technology enhance the
competitive advantages.(Yang & Ying, 2015) The potential of competitive advantage of locating in STPs
increases due to outcome benefits and innovation circulation development.(Ruiz-Ortega, Parra-Requena, &
Garcia-Villaverde, 2016) As a result, the innovation outcome in the STPs is a positive impact on competitive
advantage,(D. Minguillo et al., 2015) and the eco-innovation development is a high factor in innovation
outcome.(Kbar & Aly, 2015)
2.2 The main Dimensions that Affect the STPs
It is necessary to establish a multi-criterion evaluation system as a reference framework to compare the
effectiveness of dimensions to the STPs.(Drawoska, 2011) The most prominent scholars show that some
dimensions have been determined such as Policies, labor markets environment benefits, the availability of
network infrastructure, business start-up rate and market, entrepreneurial knowledge and R&D and finally the
innovation(Alvarez, 2014) that are main effective dimensions on the potential of creating competitive advantages
in STPs. These dimensions can improve all other dimensions of STPs and help to increase the total result of
innovation.(Aliahmadi, Sadeghi, Nozari, Jafari-Eskandari, & Najafi, 2015)
But some existing literature reveals considering the arguments lead us to the innovation output and lack of a
clear evaluation of STPs makes difficult to understand their innovative output.(Liberati, Marinucci, & Tanzi,
2015) One of the main important indicators in innovation output is the eco-innovation and regard to common
innovation benefits defined through identified criteria to evaluate.(Stosic, Milutinovic, Zakic, & Zivkovic, 2016)
1) Policies: The innovation policies from regional government initiated the innovation without central or regional
government's support(Yim, Cho, & Kim, 2015) to shift orientation the regional public and social advantages.(Clark,
2014) To strengthen the efforts of policies is by the innovation evaluation system to raise the innovation
motivations.(Liu & Guan, 2016) A good and perfect evaluation model is to cover the policy innovation to mix with
the performances and make a tool to measure the STPs innovation.(Jordan & Huitema, 2014)
2www.oecd.org
3www.iasp.ws
4www.aurp.net
http://ibr.ccsenet.org International Business Research Vol. 11, No. 11; 2018
189
2) Human Resource: Regarding human capital theory, human resource quality is adapted to regional innovation
strategy.(Li, Qin, Jiang, Zhang, & Gao, 2015) The rapid development of innovation should focus on social
benefits, job creation and human resource management.(Donate & Guadamillas, 2015) The human resource also
is beneficial to strengthening the advantage of regional innovation.(Chang, Tsai, & Henderson, 2012) Human
resource affection measures to examine the STP location decision. The firms enjoy stronger employment growth
in university STPs.(Wright, Liu, Buck, & Filatotchev, 2008)
3) Network: The STPs are the network-based complex enhance the global innovation by network(Rycroft, 2007)
and relationship increases the innovation by infrastructures and network promotion(Vasquez-Urriago, Barge-Gil,
& Rico, 2016a) to diffuse knowledge on a reciprocal basis.(Díez-Vial & Fernández-Olmos, 2015) The
knowledge obtained from universities by network will make innovation carried out by firms located in the STPs
especially that firms located in central positions of the local firm-network like an intermediate brokerage in the
innovation flows.(Diez-Vial & Montoro-Sanchez, 2016) The STPs structured innovation network, promote the
creation of new businesses and internationalization.(Wu et al., 2016)
4) Market: STPs are as a bridge between innovation strategy and market value. The marketing issue, sales growth,
and profitability are more in STP than off-park firms.(Löfsten & Lindelöf, 2002) The product-based firms linked to
STPs know that the business network value is rather than single activities.(Corsaro, Ramos, Henneberg, & Naudé,
2012) STPs are the results of the marketization and commercialization by innovative activities,(Zou & Zhao, 2014)
foreign investment(Zhang & Sonobe, 2011) creation and global markets.(Liberati et al., 2015) In the STPs the
innovation partners acquire new ideas to create a new competitiveness advantage(Chen, Chen, & Lan, 2016) to add
value through product innovation in the market.(Nishitani & Itoh, 2016)
5) Knowledge: STPs promote knowledge activities as Research and development (R&D), Research and
technology (R&T) and researching results commercialization.(Chun, Chung, & Bang, 2015) The knowledge
investment in the STPs increase the positive impact of regional R&D collaboration, patenting and innovation
factors(David Minguillo & Thelwall, 2015). The R&D cooperation between industries and universities are rather
than research institutes. A knowledge base STP is following the goal of knowledge commercialization as the
output.(Jongwanich, Kohpaiboon, & Yang, 2014)
2.3 Innovation Evaluation
For measuring the innovation, the most important step is to measure the regional innovation
cooperation(Avermaete et al., 2003) and efficacy of innovations to identify strengths and weaknesses in
functions(Mahroum & Alsaleh, 2012) It also defines the intended results of the innovation-based strategic
objective as quality,quantity, efficiency and success.(Stosic et al., 2016) During the innovation process, a new
change in regional innovation output to eco-innovation as a new behavior and culture has an important
position.(Tsai & Chang, 2016)
2.3.1 Innovation
Locate in an STP promotes innovation,(Vasquez-Urriago, Barge-Gil, & Rico, 2016b) so in order to path for the
STPs, we should consider the policy and the performance evaluation index system from several aspects such as
innovative resources input, innovative cooperation process, and output.(Jiang, 2015) Firms without innovation
efforts do not benefit from a park location. To achieve a high innovation return from STPs should measure the
output, enhance the culture of innovation diffusion and also increase the intangible benefits of innovation
flow(Vasquez-Urriago et al., 2016b) due mainly to a more diverse flow(Vasquez-Urriago et al., 2016a) and to
guide the formers, investors and policymakers.(Formica, 2009)
2.3.2 Eco-Innovation
The most important result of innovation output is to create social profit value and eco-innovation as the
competitive advantage.(Herrera, 2015) Social benefits are covered by new products, processes, and services to
lead the business and innovation together to create job, stability, and also reduce the overall negative impact on
the environment.(Stosic et al., 2016) Eco-innovation is a social innovative output toward new "ecological" ideas
to contribute the sustainable developments(Wikipedia, n.d.-a) and share the strong knowledge-based economy
and latest technologies. Hence, a proper eco-system plays an important role in creating innovation by identifying
the real value of innovation to achieve the STPs optimal goal achievement.(Kbar & Aly, 2015) Eco-innovation
development should be in direction of eco-innovation diffusion.(Karakaya, Hidalgo, & Nuur, 2014)
Socio-economic outcomes of eco-innovation has main effects of eco-innovation activities for society and the
economy, that includes changes in employment, turnover by export of products from eco-industries, circular
economy and employment. (See Note 1)
http://ibr.ccsenet.org International Business Research Vol. 11, No. 11; 2018
190
2.3.3 The Global Innovation Index (GII)
One of the challenges in the multi-dimensional innovation assessment is the innovation development(Stosic et al.,
2016) to emphasize competitiveness (Martinsuo & Poskela, 2011) and to cover goals beyond the innovation
output. (Gamal, Salah, & Elrayyes, 2011) Porter in 1990 noted that the STPs are different because the difference
of some policies or performances in the nations(Sadeghi & Sadabadi, 2015) so, not only an index to compare the
STPs in a country, but also we need a new index which is amenable to global comparisons.(Manrique &
Velásquez, 2011)
The Global Innovation Index (GII) is an annual ranking of 141 countries economy to compare their level of
innovation derived from several sources to create a system in which innovation factors are continually evaluated.
(WIPO, 2015) GII provides a multi-criteria tool and a rich database to promote long-term output growth.(GII,
2015) To measure the innovation the majority of methods are assessing just the performances without policies,
but GII is a global ranking to compare countries by their level of success in innovation based on both policies
and performances, input-output indicators and subjective-objective data. GII is suitable to evaluate the STPs in
complex and wide countries (as like as China).
2.4 The STPs in China
From 1990 under the Torch program, China established and developed more than 80 STPs on 53 china‘s
metropolises due to the concentration of high technology Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs).(Hu, 2007)
Shanghai as the most populous metropolis in China with more than 24 million population (2014) is a global
business hub(Wikipedia, n.d.-c) with more than thirteen technology-industrial zones that two science-technology
parks in this group are the biggest one as ―Zhangjiang Hi-Tech Park‖ and ―Caohejing Hi-Tech Park‖.
We had some interviews by the Zhangjiang Hi-Tech Park experts. This park specializes in research of life
sciences, software, semiconductors, and information technology. In some circles, the park is also known as
China's Silicon Valley.(Wikipedia, n.d.-d) This park with Caohejing Hi-Tech Park focuses on the development of
information industry, new materials, environmental protection, new energy, and other industries, while the
introduction of a high level of supporting services.(caohejing-Park, n.d.) The ―Caohejing Hi-Tech Park in
Shanghai‖ in China based on the literature, have been weighted by outcomes of the innovation by considering
the total dimensions and effectiveness.
3. Methodology and Measurement
In every evaluation methodology, the appropriate choice of measurement will depend upon the scorecard
framework based on the impact of main dimensions and the key indicators.(Perrin, 2002) Regarding the previous
studies, the best method to evaluate the STP is to prepare a multi-criteria innovation index as an evaluation
framework. Our new model is including some innovation metrics, investigating innovation indices, dimensions
different innovation indicators and factors to consider this idea. Our method offers an effective way of research
by administered surveys and interviews (face-to-face) as follows:
3.1 The Initial Interviews (First Step)
At first the three science parks of ―ZhongGuanCun Science Park‖ in Beijing, ―Zhangjiang Hi-Tech Park‖ and
―Caohejing Hi-Tech Park‖ in Shanghai was selected to do some initial interviews refer to related experts who are:
The administrative committee of ―ZhongGuanCun Science Park‖ in Beijing, Business development center of
―Zhangjiang Hi-Tech Park‖ and project supervisor in ―Caohejing Hi-Tech Park‖ in Shanghai.
In all interviews five categories determined as the main influencing dimension to innovation in the STPs:
Policies, Human Resources, Network, Market and knowledge. However, many innovation evaluation indices
(See Note 2) was studied to find the innovation outcome factors to follow the goal of eco-system in the STPs and
Global Innovation Index (GII)5.
The entire dimensions have been prepared based on GII innovation scopes due to a fruitful development
perspective by innovation input and output. However, some weakness of GII includes indicators that go beyond
the traditional measures of innovation (GII, 2015) and also it cannot make a strong relationship among indicators
representing input and output.(Sohn, Kim, & Jeon, 2016) Hence, we have decided to add ―eco-innovation
development‖ in the output as one of the main new STP goals of eco-system and also make a strong chain
between innovation input and output by fuzzy AHP process and DEA process.
5www.globalinnovationindex.org
http://ibr.ccsenet.org International Business Research Vol. 11, No. 11; 2018
191
3.2 The Surveys (Second Step)
We prepared a questionnaire presented two main groups of studies composed of our case study. The first group
investigates the ranking and determines the seven key dimensions in the STPs according to GII scopes. The
second group insists on new innovation output indicator as eco-innovation development. Upon the feedback also
the question reports and forms finished with asking their views, weakness or advantage of our evaluation index.
The surveys sent to the abovementioned experts of the three parks who had interviewed before. After their
modification proposals, the approved result of the dimensions is shown in Table 2 (in Results), and the key
indicators of STPs organized as shown in Table 3 (in Results), as the criterion index.
Table 1. The evaluative scales
AHP Scale affection (9 points) Likert-Type scale affection (5 points) Parentage scale affection (5 points)
Qualitative
variables
Quantitative
Value
Qualitative
variables
Quantitative
Value
Qualitative
variables
Quantitative
Value
No affect 1 No affect 0 No affect 0<V≦20%
Minor affect 3 Minor affect 0.5 Minor affect 20% <V≦40%
Neutral 5 Neutral 1 Neutral 40%<V≦60%
Moderate affect 7 Moderate affect 1.5 Moderate affect 60%<V≦80%
Major affect 9 Major affect 2 Major affect 80% <V ≦100%
In Table 1, every qualitative variable evaluated by five-level response anchors V = (v1, v2, v3, v4, v5) relative to
affection with five points quantitative value and nine points for AHP scale. After finalizing the scorecard and the
impact, the questionnaires sent to 10 experts in ―Caohejing Hi-Tech Park‖ in order to define the affections. All
the experts selected in the position of the CEO, HR manager, R&D manager and etc.
3.3 The Analysis (Third Step)
After gathering hand-collected data of the questionnaires and also data were collected using semi-structured
interviews, all the non-parametric statistical calculation has been analyzed to identify the weights and
efficiencies of the STPs by MATLAB. Two different fuzzy methods as AHP and DEA are selected to separately
make the framework for analyzing, modeling, and optimization the uncertainties.
The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a structured technique for analyzing the best goal and understanding of
the problems of the goals. It provides a rational framework to structure and quantify the elements and also to
relate the elements to overall goals and alternatives. In addition, Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) is the
method of productive efficiency in operations management where a set of measures is selected relating multiple
outputs to multiple inputs to be estimated. The AHP issued the weights of the efficiency of innovation inputs and
outputs separately and then in another process of DEA we linked the innovation input indicators to the output
goals. Finally, we concluded by comparing the results in two different methods.
4. Results
In ―Caohejing Hi-Tech Park‖ from 10 questionnaires in total refers to the experts, 5 answered survey forms
actual gathered of which three were valid as the statistical society. (The most problem is that all the experts are in
high administrative position and not accessible).
Table 2. The main dimensions
A. INNOVATION INPUT B. INNOVATION OUTPUT
I1 Policies O1 Knowledge & tech outputs I2 Human Resource O2 Creative outputs I3 Network O3 Eco - Innovation Development I4 Market I5 Knowledge
In Table 2, The dimensions according to the replied questionnaires have constructed, and at the first survey, all
the experts confirmed the ―eco-innovation development‖ as a necessary goal. But in interviews, they insisted that
this goal needs some infrastructures as green early stage investments and also environmental and energy R&D
outlays. They mentioned the result will available as Eco-innovation related patents, academic publications and
media coverage in the science section. In the technology section, it will be available as Exports of products from
eco-industries, circular economy.
http://ibr.ccsenet.org International Business Research Vol. 11, No. 11; 2018
192
Table 3. Criterion, the key Indicators relative to the main dimensions
Ii 1st Level,
Dimensions
Ai 2nd level – Indicators Oi 1st Level,
Dimensions
Bi 2nd level – Indicators
I1 Institutions
(Policies)
A1 Policy O1 Knowledge and
technology
outputs
B1 Knowledge Diffusion
A2 Laws B2 Knowledge Creation
A3 Ease of Business B3 HR knowledge development
I2 Human
Resources
A4 Education O2 Creative outputs
B4 Intangible Assets
A5 High Educated labors B5 Creation
A6 Employment policies B6 Online Creation
I3 Infrastructure A7 ICTs O3 Eco - Innovation
Development
B7 Eco – social process
A8 General Infrastructure B8 Eco – Environment
A9 Ecological Sustainability B9 Eco – technological term
I4 Market A10 Investment
A11 Credit
A12 Trade and Competition
I5 Knowledge A13 Knowledge Linkages
A14 Knowledge performance
A15 Knowledge Absorption
In Table 3, Regarding the GII and studies about the eco-innovation, all 24 indicators set the dimensions A1-A15
for innovation input, and B1-B9 for innovation output. Then a 24×24 matrix has prepared but in the first
consideration, the experts pointed that this questionnaire (matrix) is huge and baffling (For example in O1 the B1,
B2, and B3 are in the same goal group). Hence we ignored the output indicators because our main goal is
considering the main output goals, not output indicators. So we constructed the frameworks as innovation input
and innovation output separately, and analysis structured for inputs by indicators and for outputs by dimensions.
4.1 Analysis by AHP Method
According to the replies in questionnaires, after adjusting the data by AHP scale relative affection 1-9 points, the
pairwise comparison matrix outcomes by equation (1). ―A‖ is the alternatives based on i:
𝑨𝑨𝑯𝑷𝒊 = ∑ 𝑎𝑖𝑗
𝑛
𝑗=1𝑤𝑗 (1)
Table 4. AHP method for innovation outputs
124
2/112
4/12/11
O1 O2 O3
Pairwise
Comparison
Matrix
O1 1.00 0.50 0.33
O2 2.00 1.00 1.00
O3 3.00 1.00 1.00
Sum 6.00 2.50 2.33
Standardized Matrix
O1 O2 O3 Total Average Weight Cons. Average
O1 0.17 0.20 0.14 0.51 0.170 18% 3.01 C = 3.02
O2 0.33 0.40 0.43 1.16 0.388 38% 3.02 CI = 0.01
O3 0.50 0.40 0.43 1.33 0.443 44% 3.03 RI = 0.58
Sum 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.000 100%
CR = 0.01578326
CR= 0.01 is True (CR <=0.1)
http://ibr.ccsenet.org International Business Research Vol. 11, No. 11; 2018
193
In Table 4, according to the replies in questionnaires, after adjusting the data by AHP scale relative affection 1-9
points, the alternatives in terms of all criteria by equation (1) resulted in the weight of O1 is 18%, O2 is 38% and
O3 is 44%.
ʎ𝒎𝒂𝒙 = ∑(𝑺.𝑽)
𝒏.𝒘𝒗𝒋
𝒏
𝒋=𝟏
(2)
And:
𝐶𝐼 =ʎ𝑚𝑎𝑥−𝑛
n−1 (3)
The AHP method for innovation output is by CR as:
𝐶𝑅 =CI
RI (4)
In equation (2), ―V‖ is the value of ―i‖th output and ―j‖th input. Regarding to ―CI‖ equation (3), if the final value
of innovation output ―CR‖ is no higher than 0.1, as equation (4) all the process is approved. (Saaty, 1980).
Table 5. AHP method for innovation inputs
11218
1122/17
2/12/112/14
12219
8/17/14/19/11
Pairwise
Comparison
Matrix
I1 I2 I3 I4 I5
I1 1.00 0.11 0.25 0.14 0.13
I2 9.00 1.00 2.00 2.00 1.00
I3 4.00 0.50 1.00 0.50 0.50
I4 7.00 0.50 2.00 1.00 1.00
I5 8.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00
Sum 29.00 3.11 7.25 4.64 3.63
Standardized Matrix
I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 Total Average Weight Consistancy Average
I1 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.17 0.034 3% 5.05 C = 5.05
I2 0.31 0.32 0.28 0.43 0.28 1.61 0.323 32% 5.09 CI = 0.01
I3 0.14 0.16 0.14 0.11 0.14 0.68 0.136 14% 5.04 RI = 1.12
I4 0.24 0.16 0.28 0.22 0.28 1.17 0.234 23% 5.04
I5 0.28 0.32 0.28 0.22 0.28 1.36 0.273 28% 5.04
Sum 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 1.000 100%
CR = 0.01100954
CR= 0.01 is True (CR <=0.1)
In table 5, in inputs separately condition, the same method and is tested by CR value. The data were normalized
using the hybrid method of DEA. The affection weights matrix had set up by the values of questionnaires in
finding the affection value of outputs on inputs.
4.2 Analysis by DEA Method
Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) method is useful for weight restrictions conditions when judgement values
are in the form of additional constraints on the input and output weights. These constraints reduce the flexibility
of weights and improve the deviation in the DEA model. The optimum weight of the input-oriented multiplier in
DEA method extends the same modification to the output-oriented model in terms of variable input and output
weights (multipliers model). If all weight restrictions are separated the multiplier model correctly identifies the
optimal weights. But, problem arises when at least one weight is linked. In this case the optimal weight is not in
the best comparison. (Podinovski, 2016)
Hence, we should approach to separate the innovation input and output is possible because the first identified and
the smooth surface are fitted.(Sreedevi, Vimala, Rameswari, Sateesh, & Professor, 2016) But we should make a
powerful link by the DEA fuzzy method to find the weight and affection of inputs to output as a strong bridge.
http://ibr.ccsenet.org International Business Research Vol. 11, No. 11; 2018
194
If ―V‖ is the value of ―i‖th output and ―j‖th input, ―W‖ is the normalized weight and ―O‖ is the optimum weight,
Then:
Final W = ∑ 𝑊𝑖𝑛𝑖=1 ∑ 𝑉𝑖𝑗
𝑛
𝑗=1/𝑂𝑖𝑗/𝑛 (5)
The total weight of inputs and outputs calculated and adjusted by equation (5), the final W represents the
optimum weight as the decision-making unit under the assessment.
Table 6. Ranking result by Optimization
I1 I2 I3 I4 I5 Total
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9 A10 A11 A12 A13 A14 A15
O1 0 0.5 0.5 1.5 1 1 0.5 0.5 0 1 1 0.5 1 0.5 0.5 10 0.18
O2 0.5 1 1 2 2 2 1 1 0.5 2 1.5 1 2 2 1.5 21 0.38
O3 1 1 1 2 2 2 1.5 1.5 1.5 2 1.5 1 2 2 1.5 23.5 0.44
Sum 1.5 2.5 2.5 5.5 5.0 5.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 5.0 4.0 2.5 5.0 4.5 3.5 54.5 Total
O.V. 2.8 4.6 4.6 10.1* 9.2 9.2 5.5 5.5 3.7 9.2 7.3 4.6 9.2 8.3 6.4 90 100
In Table 6, The optimum weight = Total weight*100/54.5(%) and A4 in I2 is 10.1 as the optimum indicator. The
weight for O1 is 18%, O2 is 38% and O3 is 44% as well as the weights by AHP method.
Table 7. Ranking result by Normalization
O1 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.15 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.05 1.00 18
O2 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.10 0.07 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.07 1.00 38
O3 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.09 0.06 0.04 0.09 0.09 0.06 1.00 44
Sam 0.07 0.14 0.14 0.33 0.28 0.28 0.16 0.16 0.09 0.28 0.24 0.14 0.28 0.23 0.19 3.00 100
In Table 7, we estimated the final percentage weights of the output dimensions and also the final normalized
weights of input indicators, to the sum of the criteria as innovation outcomes the total weights of the indicators
equaled one.
5. Discussion
The total results of the correlational analysis show that the weight of affection of the main dimensions in both
fuzzy methods of DEA and AHP are the same and the weight of input indicators should be flexible enough
because some regional differences and relatives regard to regional economic benefits. All the studies hereby as a
knowledge-based discussion have been presented:
Figure 1. AHP method for innovation inputs
Regardless the traditional STPs measuring systems, in MATLAB structured model as Fig 1., the main dimensions
categorized the innovation process by input and output according to the GII scopes with eco-system main goals.
The effective dimension in innovation inputs is the Human resources (I2) and in the outputs is the eco-innovation
development (O3) with the highest impact for competitive advantage. The analysis also results that the Institutions
and Policies (I1) is in the less affection, however some interviewees in Beijing mentioned that in innovation input,
the policy is more important. It shows that how much the weights of the index should be flexible in every
environment. One unanticipated finding that some experts mentioned is the ―eco-innovation diffusion‖ that should
add to the indicator in the further studies (after totally the goal of eco-innovation will achieve).
http://ibr.ccsenet.org International Business Research Vol. 11, No. 11; 2018
195
Figure 2. All the outputs in one layer Figure 3. The outputs in two layers
Regarding interviews, the initial structure of the regional Innovation System from inside-out to outside-in is
characterized by cooperative innovation as Fig.2(Shukla, Gupta, Dubey, & Thakur, 2016) but with respect to the
experts view, a new approach for the STPs model should be able from inside-out to outside-in with two layers in
output that eco-innovation will be the result of the two another outcome dimensions as Fig.3.
Figure 4. The most important indicator by MATLAB Result
According to Figure 4, the most effective indicator in innovation inputs is ―Education‖ (I4) with the optimum
weight of 10.1, in MATLAB, the conclusion of weights (between max 1 and the min 0) and outcome variables
issued by percentage to decide easier.
Table 8. The factors of indicators
A. Innovation Input
1 Political Effectiveness 2 Law effectiveness 3 Ease of Business # Commercial policies (Customs, Tax exemption, Tariff rate) 4 Education Effectiveness # Investment on education
5 High quality Educated # Researcher, engineer, Manager, Business provider (Marketer), # Experts (Academic or experimental and training)
6 Employment policies # Develop opportunities for university students, # Employment in well paid high sector jobs, # Females Employed with advanced degree
7 ICTs Effectiveness # ICT access, # Government's online service, # Communications, computer and information services
8 General Infrastructure # Electricity output, # Logistics performance 9 Ecological Sustainability # environmental certificates 10 Credit # Ease of getting credit 11 Investment # Ease of investment absorption, # Ease of protecting investors
12 Trade and Competition # local competitiveness, # Domestic market share, # Improving Export power, #Accessibility to the market information and data, # Commercializing, # Market development
13 Knowledge economy # Formal training (especially for the start-up companies), # Gross expenditure on R&D(GERD) , # Knowledge Investment, # Royalties and license fees payments
14 Knowledge Linkages # Government collaboration, # Industry sections collaboration, # High ranking universities cooperation, # State of cluster development, # Relationship with other enterprises, # Joint venture / strategic alliance deals
15 Knowledge Absorption # Accessibility to the technology resources and information, # High-tech imports
http://ibr.ccsenet.org International Business Research Vol. 11, No. 11; 2018
196
B. innovation outputs
16 Knowledge Creation #Patenting and licensing activities, #Scientific and technical publications, #Total computer software spending, #High-tech and medium-high-tech output
17 Knowledge Impact #Growth rate of GDP per person engaged, #New business density, #Quality certificates
18 Knowledge Diffusion #High-tech exports, #Foreign direct investment net outflows, #R&D, Technology and knowledge transferring
19 Intangible Assets #Trademark and branding, #Business and organizational models creation
20 Creation #Cultural and creative goods exports, #Cultural and creative services exports, #Global entertainment and media output
21 Online Creation #Generic top-level domains (gTLDs), #Dynamic Website monthly edits
22 Eco – Environment
# Innovation economy (Capital, investment and financial supports), # Investment for innovative ideas, # Internationalization (innovation that compete internationally), #Innovation opportunities realized in firms, # Innovation Policy (Small business development through incubators), #Modification the SPT Operational management team
23 Eco – social process # Culture of Innovation (Awareness of innovation beneficial effects), # The social benefits, # Sustainable job creation
24 Eco – technological term # knowledge economic development, # Numbers of (Technological - based)company start-ups
In Table 8, the main factors that the experts concentrated as the different forms of linkage activities and
implications of relevant evidence and the scope for promotional policies. They insist the main benefit of
eco-innovation is the social advantages for the located hi-tech enterprises. In addition, we discovered that
―Caohejing Hi-Tech Park‖ has the transportation problem due to located inside the Shanghai (not in the suburb).
Figure 5. The MATLAB Result of achieving of the goal in Caohejing Hi-Tech Park
The results in Figure 5 shows all pairwise matrix and results present that ―Caohejing Hi-Tech Park‖ has a good
score with a significant impact on innovation development and effective value toward eco-system. Finally all of
our studies and interviews confirmed by experts and interviewees that the main further competitive advantage in
STPs is the ability and capacity of creating innovation by ―eco-innovations diffusion‖. The high-tech clusters in
regional economies are presenting an obstacle of realistic assessments of policy and performances relevance.
6. Conclusion
Concluding, the new goal of the STPs is to develop the innovation process to a proper eco-innovative system by
a novel analytical approach. The hypothesis of this study was undertaken to design a multi-criterion reference
framework to measure the effectiveness of the key indicators to achieve the eco-STP system. According to
relevant surveys and literature, we associated main key dimensions that are assessed by comparison of different
scales and one of the more significant emerges from this study is a new method that has been adopted the
traditional scorecards with GII scopes and has established to add the eco-innovation development as a final key.
Overall, the current study is based on a small sample by analyzing an STP in Shanghai and we tried to provide a
functions-based operational System by fuzzy methods (AHP and DEA) and finally, we are witnessing that the
eco-innovation system is the base of STP competitive advantage evaluation. This study strengthens to separate
the innovation process by input and output and also to make a strong comparison link between them by fuzzy
evaluation of their affection.
In summary, the top-three dimensions of STPs based on the regional innovation outcome are ―Knowledge and
technology outputs‖, ―Creative outputs‖ and ―Eco-Innovation Development‖ and the main input indicators that
are influencing the effectiveness are the ―education‖ in ―Human resources‖ dimension, ―Investment‖ in ―Market‖
dimension and also the ―Knowledge linkage‖ in ―Knowledge‖ dimension.
0
20
40
60
O1 O2 O3
Main Scopes Comparision Chart
系列1 系列3
http://ibr.ccsenet.org International Business Research Vol. 11, No. 11; 2018
197
The final conclusion as the general overview of the literature associated some interesting results that the main
benefit of an eco-STP system is to ecological ideas and Culture of Innovation, the stable social benefits (job
creation), internationalization, industry cluster effect and finally to share the strong knowledge-based economy
and latest technologies (eco-innovation diffusion). It was also understanding that the eco-innovation as a new
competitive advantage for the located hi-tech enterprises is effective.
Future research should concentrate on the investigation of ―diffusion of eco-innovations‖ that actually
corresponds to the next research paths.
References
Aliahmadi, A., Sadeghi, M. E., Nozari, H., Jafari-Eskandari, M., & Najafi, S. E. (2015). Studying Key Factors to
Creating Competitive Advantage in Science Park. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Ninth
International Conference on Management Science and Engineering Management.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-47241-5_82
Alvarez, M. L. (2014). Setting up, Managing and Evaluating EURO Scienceand Technology Parks. European
Union: European Commission, Directorate-General for Regional and Urban policy.
Avermaete, T., Morgan, E. J., Viaene, J., Pitts, E., Crawford, N., & Mahon, D. (2003). Regional patterns of
innovation: case study of small food firms. Paper presented at the DRUID summer conference.
caohejing-Park. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.caohejing.com/en/index.php
Chang, H. C., Tsai, C. L., & Henderson, S. (2012). How industrial clusters and regional innovation systems
impact the knowledge innovation within the Taiwanese science-based parks firms? New Research on
Knowledge Management Applications and Lesson Learned, InTech, Rijeka, 1-24.
Chen, H. H., Chen, S. L., & Lan, Y. (2016). Attaining a sustainable competitive advantage in the smart grid
industry of China using suitable open innovation intermediaries. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews,
62, 1083-1091. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.03.008
Chun, D., Chung, Y., & Bang, S. (2015). Impact of firm size and industry type on R&D efficiency throughout
innovation and commercialisation stages: evidence from Korean manufacturing firms. Technology Analysis
& Strategic Management, 27(8), 895-909. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2015.1024645
Clark, J. J. (2014). Siting ‗Scientific Spaces' in the US: The Push and Pull of Regional Development Strategies
and National Innovation Policies. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 32(5), 880-895.
https://doi.org/10.1068/c1271r
Corsaro, D., Ramos, C., Henneberg, S. C., & Naudé, P. (2012). The impact of network configurations on value
constellations in business markets—The case of an innovation network. Industrial Marketing Management,
41(1), 54-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2011.11.017
Díez-Vial, I., & Fernández-Olmos, M. (2015). Knowledge spillovers in science and technology parks: how can
firms benefit most? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40(1), 70-84.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-013-9329-4
Diez-Vial, I., & Montoro-Sanchez, A. (2016). How knowledge links with universities may foster innovation: The
case of a science park. Technovation, 50-51, 41-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2015.09.001
Donate, M. J., & Guadamillas, F. (2015). An empirical study on the relationships between knowledge
management, knowledge-oriented human resource practices and innovation. Knowledge Management
Research & Practice, 13(2), 134-148. https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2013.36
Drawoska, J. (2011). Measuring the success of science parks: performance, monitoring and evaluation.
Recuperado en (2013, Septiembre 10), 20.
Ferrara, M., Lamperti, F., & Mavilia, R. (2016). Looking for best performers: a pilot study towards the
evaluation of science parks. Scientometrics, 106(2), 717-750. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1804-2
Formica, P. (2009). Science and Technology Parks (STP): The Evolution.
Gamal, D., Salah, T., & Elrayyes, N. (2011). How to measure organization Innovativeness. Technology
Innovation and Entrepreneurship Center.
GII. (2015). Global Innovation Index. Retrieved on. Retrieved from www.globalinnovationindex.org/
Herrera, M. E. B. (2015). Creating competitive advantage by institutionalizing corporate social innovation.
Journal of Business Research, 68(7), 1468-1474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.01.036
http://ibr.ccsenet.org International Business Research Vol. 11, No. 11; 2018
198
Hu, A. G. Z. (2007). Technology parks and regional economic growth in China. Research policy, 36(1), 76-87.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.08.003
IASP. (n.d., 2016). The role of STPs and areas of innovation. Retrieved from
www.iasp.ws/the-role-of-stps-and-innovation-areas
Jiang, H.-J. (2015). Performance evaluation of innovation network-based cross-regional innovative cooperation.
Paper presented at the Machine Learning and Cybernetics (ICMLC), 2015 International Conference on.
Jongwanich, J., Kohpaiboon, A., & Yang, C.-H. (2014). Science park, triple helix, and regional innovative
capacity: province-level evidence from China. Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, 19(2), 333-352.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13547860.2014.880285
Jordan, A., & Huitema, D. (2014). Innovations in climate policy: the politics of invention, diffusion, and
evaluation. Environmental Politics, 23(5), 715-734. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2014.923614
Karakaya, E., Hidalgo, A., & Nuur, C. (2014). Diffusion of eco-innovations: A review. Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, 33, 392-399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.01.083
Kbar, G., & Aly, S. (2015). Goal-based Key Performance Indicators of Science Parks' Effectiveness: A Case
Study at Riyadh Techno-Valley. British Journal of Economics, Management & Trade, 8(3), 237-257.
Kolahi, J. (2015). Dental science and technology parks: Rethinking university-industry connections. Dental
Hypotheses, 6(2), 40. https://doi.org/10.4103/2155-8213.158467
Li, X., Qin, X., Jiang, K., Zhang, S., & Gao, F. Y. (2015). Human Resource Practices and Firm Performance in
China: The Moderating Roles of Regional Human Capital Quality and Firm Innovation Strategy.
Management and Organization Review, 11(02), 237-261. https://doi.org/10.1017/mor.2015.12
Liberati, D., Marinucci, M., & Tanzi, G. M. (2015). Science and Technology Parks in Italy: main features and
analysis of their effects on the firms hosted. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 1-36.
Liu, N., & Guan, J. (2016). Policy and innovation: Nanoenergy technology in the USA and China. Energy Policy,
91, 220-232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.01.020
Löfsten, H., & Lindelöf, P. (2002). Science Parks and the growth of new technology-based
firms—academic-industry links, innovation and markets. Research policy, 31(6), 859-876.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00153-6
Mahroum, S., & Alsaleh, Y. (2012). Measuring innovation efficacy: an operational framework for mapping and
measuring innovation capacity and performance of countries.
Manrique, J. A., & Velásquez, J. R. (2011). Innovation indices of the Colombian industrial groups from two
national innovation surveys. Paper presented at the 2011 Proceedings of PICMET'11: Technology
Management in the Energy Smart World (PICMET).
Martinsuo, M., & Poskela, J. (2011). Use of evaluation criteria and innovation performance in the front end of
innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(6), 896-914.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2011.00844.x
Minguillo, D., & Thelwall, M. (2015). Which are the best innovation support infrastructures for universities?
Evidence from R&D output and commercial activities. Scientometrics, 102(1), 1057-1081.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1458-5
Minguillo, D., Tijssen, R., & Thelwall, M. (2015). Do science parks promote research and technology? A
scientometric analysis of the UK. Scientometrics, 102(1), 701-725.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1435-z
Nishitani, K., & Itoh, M. (2016). Product innovation in response to environmental standards and competitive
advantage: a hedonic analysis of refrigerators in the Japanese retail market. Journal of Cleaner Production,
113, 873-883. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.11.032
Perrin, B. (2002). How to—and how not to—evaluate innovation. Evaluation, 8(1), 13-28.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1358902002008001514
Podinovski, V. V. (2016). Optimal weights in DEA models with weight restrictions. European Journal of
Operational Research, 254(3), 916-924. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2016.04.035
Ruiz-Ortega, M. J., Parra-Requena, G., & Garcia-Villaverde, P. M. (2016). Do Territorial Agglomerations Still
Provide Competitive Advantages? A Study of Social Capital, Innovation, and Knowledge. International
http://ibr.ccsenet.org International Business Research Vol. 11, No. 11; 2018
199
Regional Science Review, 39(3), 259-290. https://doi.org/10.1177/0160017613512652
Rycroft, R. W. (2007). Does cooperation absorb complexity? Innovation networks and the speed and spread of
complex technological innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 74(5), 565-578.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2006.10.005
Sadeghi, M. E., & Sadabadi, A. A. (2015). Evaluating Science Parks Capacity to Create Competitive Advantages:
Comparison of Pardis Technology Park and Sheikh Bahaei Science and Technology Park in Iran.
International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 12(06), 1550031.
https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219877015500315
Shukla, D. P., Gupta, S., Dubey, C. S., & Thakur, M. (2016). Geo-spatial Technology for Landslide Hazard
Zonation and Prediction.
Sohn, S. Y., Kim, D. H., & Jeon, S. Y. (2016). Re-evaluation of global innovation index based on a structural
equation model. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 28(4), 492-505.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2015.1104412
Specht, K., Zoll, F., & Siebert, R. (2016). Application and evaluation of a participatory "open innovation"
approach (ROIR): The case of introducing zero-acreage farming in Berlin. Landscape and Urban Planning,
151, 45-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.03.003
Sreedevi, R., Vimala, V., Rameswari, P., Sateesh, S., & Professor, A. P. (2016). An Application of Fuzzy logic
and DEA in Agriculture Sector. International Journal of Engineering Science, 4876.
Stosic, B., Milutinovic, R., Zakic, N., & Zivkovic, N. (2016). Selected indicators for evaluation of
eco-innovation projects. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 1-15.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13511610.2016.1157682
Tsai, C.-L., & Chang, H.-C. (2016). Evaluation of critical factors for the regional innovation system within the
HsinChu science-based park. Kybernetes, 45(4), 699-716. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-02-2015-0059
Vasquez-Urriago, A. R., Barge-Gil, A., & Rico, A. M. (2016a). Science and Technology Parks and cooperation
for innovation: Empirical evidence from Spain. Research policy, 45(1), 137-147.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.07.006
Vasquez-Urriago, A. R., Barge-Gil, A., & Rico, A. M. (2016b). Which firms benefit more from being located in a
Science and Technology Park? Empirical evidence for Spain. Research Evaluation, 25(1), 107-117.
https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvv033
Wikipedia. (n.d.-a, 28,7,2016). Eco-innovation. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-innovation
Wikipedia. (n.d.-b, 23,8,2016). Science Park. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_park
Wikipedia. (n.d.-c, 18,9,2016). Shanghai. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai
Wikipedia. (n.d.-d, 6,9,2016). Zhangjiang Hi-Tech Park. Wikipedia. Retrieved from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhangjiang_Hi-Tech_Park
WIPO. (2015). Global Innovation Index 2015: Switzerland, UK, Sweden, Netherlands, USA are Leaders. The
World Intellectual Property Organization.
Wright, M., Liu, X., Buck, T., & Filatotchev, I. (2008). Returnee Entrepreneurs, Science Park Location Choice
and Performance: An Analysis of High‐Technology SMEs in China. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 32(1), 131-155. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2007.00219.x
Wu, J., Wang, C., Hong, J., Piperopoulos, P., & Zhuo, S. (2016). Internationalization and innovation performance
of emerging market enterprises: The role of host-country institutional development. Journal of World
Business, 51(2), 251-263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2015.09.002
Xu, Y.-l., Wang, Q., & Wang, W. (2011). Fuyang paper industrial cluster performance evaluation based on fuzzy
evaluation. Paper presented at the 2011 International Conference on Electronics, Communications and
Control (ICECC). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICECC.2011.6068142
Yang, J., & Ying, L. M. (2015). A Study on the Effects of Knowledge Management on Innovation Strategies And
Competitive Advantages. Acta Oeconomica, 65, 159-171. https://doi.org/10.1556/032.65.2015.S2.12
Yim, D., Cho, H. H., & Kim, E. (2015). Revisit the concept and usefulness of Science and Technology Park and
implication for the regional innovation policy: Cases of Seoul and Gyeonggi Province in Korea. Paper
presented at the 2015 Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology
http://ibr.ccsenet.org International Business Research Vol. 11, No. 11; 2018
200
(PICMET).
Zeng, S. X., Xie, X. M., & Tam, C. (2010). Evaluating Innovation Capabilities For Science Parks: A SYSTEM
MODEL. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 16(3), 397-413.
https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2010.25
Zhang, H., & Sonobe, T. (2011). Development of science and technology parks in China, 1988-2008. Economics:
The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal, 5, 6.
Zou, Y., & Zhao, W. (2014). Anatomy of Tsinghua University Science Park in China: institutional evolution and
assessment. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(5), 663-674.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-013-9314-y
Notes
Note 1. European Commission (2017). Eco-innovation [online]. Available at:
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/ecoap/indicators/index_en
Note 2. Bloomberg Innovation Index, Bogota Manual Index, Oslo Manual Index, Florida Creative Class Index,
Global Competitiveness Report, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) Index,
Innovation Capacity Index (ICI), Indiana Innovation Index, Innovation Union Scoreboard, Innovations
Indikator, INSEAD Innovation Efficacy Index, International Innovation Index, National Association of
Manufacturers (NAM), Management Innovation Index, New York City Economic Development
Corporation Innovation Index (NYCEDC), State Technology and Science Index, World Competitiveness
Scoreboard.
Copyrights
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).